Next, we turn now and address some Commercial debt instruments that
just about everyone uses constantly. And when this Commercial paper is used and then
recirculated by you, Federal Benefits are being quietly accepted by you and so now subtle
contracts are in effect. As commercial holders in due course, you and the King are
experiencing mutual enrichment from each other.[1] The
King believes that the mere use of Federal Reserve Notes, those "circulating
evidences of debt"[2] that his Legal Tender
Statutes[3] have enhanced the value of as a co-endorser;
and that the mere acceptance and beneficial use of those circulating Commercial equity
instruments of debt, constitutes an attachment of Equity Jurisdiction sufficiently related
to experiencing Commercial profit or gain in Interstate Commerce as to warrant the
attachment of civil liability to his so-called Title 26. Remember, once you get rid of
your political contracts to pay taxes (like National Citizenship), Federal Judges will
then start examining the record to see if there are any Commercial benefits out there that
you have been experiencing. Once you are a Citizen, Federal Judges will generally stop
looking for other contracts; but once Citizenship is gone, then other normally quiescent
Commercial nexuses that attach King's Equity Jurisdiction suddenly take upon themselves
vibrant new importance.[4]

I have thought out this perspective that the King has on this subject matter over
and over again, and based on an analysis of principles, rights, liabilities, and Cases
that surface in Commercial Contract Law relating to Negotiable Instruments (as Federal
Reserve Notes are Negotiable Instruments), and of the rights, liabilities and duties of Holders
in Due Course, and I have come to the conclusion that the King is basically correct.
For example, bills, notes, and checks are also Negotiable Instruments, as well as Inland
Bills of Exchange. Collectively, Negotiable Instruments differ somewhat from orthodox
Commercial contracts for the reason that the American Jurisprudential law concerning them
springs from several different and independent sources. Whereas the simple Law of
Contracts had its origin in the Common Law of England, in contrast this Law of Negotiable
Instruments arose largely out of the summary and chronologically abbreviated practices and
international customs of merchants in Commerce. Those merchants formulated a body of rules
and common practices relating to their trade which were gradually adapted into the Law of
the Law by the English Courts. Bills of exchange and promissory notes, of which Federal
Reserve Notes are a composite blend of, acquired early on the peculiar quality and nature
among merchants in Commerce as being negotiable, i.e., passable as Tender to different
people. Negotiability was then defined to mean that if an instrument is negotiable in form
and is in the hands of a Holder in Due Course, then possible personal defenses
someone may later assert against the Holder are cut off of in the Holder's favor. This
idea of negotiability is an intriguing one. It differs quite a bit from the conception of
assignability underlying the transfer of choses in action which are not negotiable.

Furthermore, all factors considered, it is my opinion that the King is not only
just basically correct, but that the King is also in a very strong position here, and that
Federal Magistrates are not Star Chamber Chancellors when throwing out your civil tax
defenses that ignore this invisible and adhesive attachment of King's Equity Jurisdiction,
and the strong presumption of your entrance into King's Commerce that the acceptance and
beneficial recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes necessarily infers. However, the seminal
reason why the King is in such a strong position is only partially related to his sub
silentio aggression against you; the largest reason is because you, by your own
default, have accepted the benefits of this Commercial nexus Equity relationship with the
King. The King is in a very strong position here under normal circumstances, so you can be
perfectly right for 100 reasons in your Income Tax defense, and ignore this last tiny
little area in your defense, and lose (assuming that your Case is adjudged on the
substantive merits, and not on some technical distraction question).

Under the Common Mercantile Law of Commercial Contract Law applicable to Negotiable
Instruments, it has always been prima facie evidence[5]
that the mere issuance of the Negotiable Instrument itself constitutes the evidence of the
receipt and enjoyment of Consideration.[6] This
acceptance of Consideration Doctrine is of maximum importance to understand and appreciate
in its placement into the contemporary Income Tax setting, as this Doctrine has been
around for a very long time, and the King is only now using it for his own enrichment. Law
books repeat over and over again that acceptable Consideration may be anything that will
support a simple contract, and may even specifically include previously existing debt.
This Consideration Doctrine survives the codification of the Law Merchant into the
Negotiable Instruments Law, and also survives the later restatement of the N.I.L. into the
Uniform Commercial Code.

The Law of Commercial Contract applicable to the use and recirculation of
Negotiable Instruments is quite old, just like King's Commerce itself. Commercial Paper
was also used extensively by merchants in the Middle Ages, and the origin of our
contemporary Law of Negotiable Instruments was an unwritten Common Law applicable
to merchants, called the Law Merchant. This Law Merchant was gradually assimilated as an
appendage onto English Common Law, and subsequently became a part of our American
Jurisprudence when the New England Colonies turned into states and adapted English Common
Law. The Law Merchant is spoken of by English Judges with reference to Bills of Exchange
and negotiable securities. It is neither more nor less than the common usages of merchants
and traders in the different departments of trade, ratified by decisions of Courts of Law,
which Courts later upon such usages being proved before them, readapted those merchant
practices into the Common Law of England as settled law with a view to the interest of
trade and the public convenience. Therefore, what was at one time mere custom in between
merchants then became grafted upon, or incorporated onto, the Common Law, and may now be
correctly said to form an overlapping part of the Common Law. When such general Commercial
practices have been judicially ascertained and established, those Commercial practices
become a part of the Law Merchant, which contemporary American courts of justice are bound
to honor. In the early 1800's, many American states enacted their own statutes pertaining
to Commercial paper, with the result being a lack of uniformity in both statutes, as well
as the court decisions applying those statutes to different factual settings. Lawyers
don't like lack of similarity, and so the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws drafted a bill to make the Law of Negotiable Instruments uniform from one state
to the next. The draft of the bill was called the Negotiable Instruments Law, which
when completed in 1896 was largely enacted into lex by almost all the states. The
contemporary Uniform Commercial Code repeals the N.I.L. in those states that have enacted
the UCC; but the kicker is that old Law Merchant himself is still very much around, alive,
enforceable, and kicking.

And if the King has got you accepting the Consideration inherent in Negotiable
Instruments that he is a Holder in Due Course to, and that his Legal Tender
Statutes have enhanced the value, and additionally retains a distant Equity interest in,
then the King has got an invisible contract on you and the King has you plump little
turkeys exactly where he wants you: Ripe for a Federal plucking. So to correctly handle
this beneficial "use of Federal Reserve Notes" creating a taxing liability
story, we need to start out with the basic premise that the King is correct in his
assertions, and so are judges in their reasoning; to believe otherwise is to be self
damaging, as we have no time to waste with any error in our reasoning.

If you are like most folks, the King has got you accepting his Consideration and
financial benefits with your mere use of Federal Reserve Notes, because most folks want to
use and want to experience the beneficial enjoyment that widespread acceptance and
Commercial use of Federal Reserve Notes brings. But read those words over again carefully,
as they also contain the Grand Key for getting out of this Equity Ace our King has neatly
tucked up in his Royal Sleeve: The contract that is in effect whenever benefits,
conditionally offered, were accepted by you.[7]

Examining a profile slice of the tens of thousands of Cases out there addressing
questions of Commercial Contract Law applicable to the annulment of the rights and duties
of Holders in Due Course of Commercial Paper (notes, bonds, securities, checks,
equitable specialties in general, etc.), it is the State of Mind of the parties at
the time the Negotiable Instrument was accepted, that determines the subsequent rights and
duties of Holders in Due Course. Holders in Due Course, so called, are in a special
Status as it pertains to the use and recirculation of Commercial instruments. Holders
in Due Course are assumed to have taken the Negotiable Instrument (Federal Reserve
Note) free of the defense of "Absence or Failure of Consideration," and
additionally, are generally free of all other defenses as well. When the King is a Holders
in Due Course of Federal Reserve Notes, then the King is immune to any defense we may
assert against him, as he collects on an invisible contract created when his Commercial
benefits were accepted by you. Do you see why it is not very wide to snicker at Federal
Judges if you have not properly handled your defense line in this area of using Federal
Reserve Notes? In some cases, a person wants to be in this Holders in Due Course
Status due to its protective nature, and in other circumstances, we don't want to be a Holders
in Due Course due to the liabilities involved. Generally speaking, subject to the
condition that the person accepted the Negotiable Instrument in good faith and for
value, a Holders in Due Course occupies a protected position free from any personal
defenses someone else may assert. But in dealing with the King on those Federal Reserve
Notes, our declared Status as Holders in Due Course or Holders not
in Due Course is not important: Because by filing Objections and Notice of Protest,
etc., the King's Status as a Holder in Due Course is then automatically terminated,
and getting the King off of that sovereign Status Throne of his is what's important.

So merely filing a Notice of Protest and Notice of Defect will automatically deny
the King his coveted and protected Status as being a Holder in Due Course with
Federal Reserve Notes, as that protective status applies to you. Remember that in our Pan
Am jet leasing example, a person must both want and then use a benefit provided by
another party, prior to effectuating an attachment of Equity Jurisdiction strong enough to
extract money from, in a judicial proceeding, out of the part in default.

And in addition to outright Consideration, by your Commercial use and recirculation
of Federal Reserve Notes, the King has you strapped into his debt as an
"Automatically Transferred and Joint Obligation Debtor." Under a very large body
of Roman Civil Law, and Jewish Commercial Law going back to Moses and the Talmud, there is
a kind of an obligation in law whose source is not contract or promise in the classical
sense, but due to a ripple effect of debt, an obligation can be automatically transferred
down a line of notes passers and debtors. This Doctrine is elucidated quite well in Jewish
Law, where this doctrine is formally known as Shibuda D'Rabbi Nathan (meaning the line of
Rabbi Nathan). Under this liability dispersion model, debt ripples from one person
to another back up the line, without the appearance of any contract being readily
apparent. Say that a person "A" owes money to "B", and
"B" owes money to "C". Person "C" can then recover
from "A" an amount of money not exceeding the sum person "B"
owes to "C".[8]

The reason why this debt liability being rippled back up the line a few person is
called "Rabbi Nathan's Lien" is because this rule is generally attributed to
Rabbi Nathan, a tannaitic sage (Babylonia and Palestine, in the Second Century), who first
formulated it on the basis of a certain interpretation of a Mosaic text. Here in the
contemporary United States, a very similar analogy is found operating both in Contract Law
and in Tort Law, but for different reasons.

1. Under Tort Law liability reasoning, persons who you never had any contract or
contact with, are liable for damages they work on you. For example, be underneath an
airplane when it crashes. Under the Joint and Several Liability Doctrine, attorneys
will sue the Federal Aviation Administration, the pilot, the local political jurisdiction
that owns the airport, the contractor who built the airport, the airline, the airline's
insurance company, the airline's airplane manufacturer, persons who supply parts to the
airplane manufacturer, the pilot's mother, etc., without limit, right up the line.

2. When a grievance is under Contract Law jurisprudence, generally, persons not a
party to the contract are normally exempt from liability absent an interfering Tort they
worked, somehow (Called Tortious Interference with Contract).

But properly viewed at the conclusion of the grievance, this Rabbi Nathan's Lien is
no more than just an asset seizure against debtor's assets held by third parties, and
whether the underlying factual setting behind the Judgment was under Tort Law or Contract
Law is now irrelevant, once the Judgment has been docketed, and that person's
assets are now under attack. So when a judgment has been obtained against Party
"B", and Party "C" owes "B" some money, then when Party
"A" throws an action at "C", then that arrangement is no more than the
equivalent of a directed wage garnishment that goes on every single day of the week, here
in the United States. And just as this Liability Ripple Scenario goes on at such a quiet
level with wage garnishments, so too does it carry on at a national level with you and I
and our assets being pledged to pay off the National Debt of the United States.

But our King is our adversary in Court, and his attorneys use partially twisted
logic to quiet our exception from taxation arguments, and so their attitude is a simple
"you pay." But important for the moment is your knowledge that your Commercial
use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes is properly deemed a sufficient nexus to
the King's Equity Jurisdiction as to effectuate an attachment of liability for the payment
of the King's outstanding debt that he owes to the Federal Reserve Board, with the amount
of your payment being measured by your net taxable income. Other personal assets are
deemed collateral material as well, but the King's key to effectuate this liability is our
Enfranchised Status, under contract. Since the Angle-Saxon Law Merchant wants to see
Consideration, and Consideration is present when Federal Reserve Notes are recirculated in
King's Commerce, a taxing liability does exist of and by itself under English Common Law.
This Jewish Ripple Liability Model is supporting evidence to conclude that although we
might not like our King, there is a very wide body of law out there in the world to
support our King with his taxing justification theories. The Law is always justified, and
this is just another layer of justification for the King to use as an excuse to raise
revenue. This Ripple Effect Liability Law springs forth from several different seminal
global points of pronouncement, and it does support the King in this very subtle
attachment of taxing liability. So let's change the factual setting by correcting our
Status, and stop snickering at the fat King, as he is only using common law (the national
equivalent of wage garnishments) and ancient law (its longevity and long term universal
acceptance means that it is well Principled and well founded) to support his excessive
financial demands.

Question: What if you don't want to accept the benefits of and use of Federal
Reserve Notes?

What if you are different? What if you have factual knowledge that the King only
got this monopoly on American currency circulation (both gold and silver), not by free
market acceptance and competitive universal respect and appreciation for benefits offered
by his Legal Tender Statutes, which is the way all Commercial transactions should be
based, but rather, through force, duress, coercion, penal statutes, naked physical duress,
and literally out of the barrel of a gun: Because guns being drawn is exactly what two
remaining private coin mints saw as United States Treasury Agents raided the last diehard
private coin mints in California in the late 1800's, and physically destroyed them (but
that intriguing Americana history following an act of Congress in 1864 banning private
coins as currency is another Letter). But dealing with Private Coin Mints out of the
barrel of a gun is only half the story, as our King is usually quite thorough in whatever
he decides to muscle in on. The King also dealt with the private circulation of Notes
(both bank notes and private company notes that circulated just as if they were currency)
through a series of penal statutes going back to the Civil War.[9]

After the Civil War, the King's enactment of currency monopoly statutes paralleled
his Private Express Statutes in the sense that private postal companies previously
competing with the King were ordered shut down and put out of business at gun point,[10] and our King sealed himself up a national postal
monopoly. No more would be the days of the 1800's, when many banks and private companies
issued and circulated their own widely accepted currency. Our King doesn't like
competition, and he has this nasty habit of his to use penal statutes and his hired
bouncers (the U.S. Marshals, as the King's Bouncers) to force people into relationships
with him, against their will and over their objection, that they would never have
voluntarily consummated on their own free will and volition.

[For example, here in Rochester, New York, some enterprising folks, seeing the
escalating rise in postage prices going on in the early 1970's, and detecting that
something just wasn't right here due to the wide percentage variance in cost and pricing,
promptly went about setting up their own postal company in 1976. They concentrated on
Rochester's Central Business District, and offering the lower prices that they did,
quickly signed up law firms, banks, accountants, hotels, and the like. Several national
magazines featured articles about them,[11] but the
King's Agents in the Postal Service, smelling an inexpensive upstart on the block offering
cheaper prices and accelerated delivery schedules, quickly threw a Restraining Order
Petition at Rochester Postal Service in Federal District Court here. The Petition was
granted, with justifying reference being made to the Private Express Statutes of the Civil
War Era. On appeal, the Second Circuit in New York City went into a discussion on how the
King's right to seal up a national postal monopoly under penal statutes has never been
successfully challenged, and remains essentially airtight.][12]

But for our purposes here in addressing the attachment of revenue Equity
Jurisdiction by the acceptance and use of Federal Reserve Notes as a Holder in Due
Course. What is important is that it is you, under the Ratification Doctrine,
by your own silence and default, by your failure to object and to object timely, it is by
your silence that the King wins. Under this Doctrine, your silence in the face of a
proposition being made to you constitutes your approval of the proposition, if synchronous
with the silence you experienced a benefit. Reason, logic, and common sense. Let us
consider the application of this Ratification Doctrine as it hypothetically applies
to a person acting in the subordinated position of agency for another person.[13]

When one such person, as agent, does an act on behalf of another person, but
without complete authority, the person for whom such act is done may afterwards adopt the
act as if it is done in his behalf, thereby giving the act the same legal effect as if it
had been originally fully authorized. This subsequent retroactive consent, the effect of
which relates back to the time of the original act and places the Principle in the same
position as if he had originally authorized the act, is called Ratification.[14] Under this hypothetical agency relationship, when a
person finds that an act has been done in his name or on his behalf, that person must
either Ratify it, or in the alternative, disaffirm it.[15]
But silence constitutes approval of the act.[16]

Ratification may be implied from any form of conduct inconsistent with
disavowal of the contract; therefore anything else, other than explicit and blunt
disavowal, is Ratification -- if synchronous with the silence, benefits offered
conditionally were accepted. This is quite a strong Doctrine, but it has to be this way
under Natural Law, since benefits offered conditionally are being accepted, invisible
contracts are in effect, and failure to require the party experiencing the benefits to act
quickly and reject the benefits constitutes a Tort on the other party. This Ratification
is analogous under Contract Law to the acceptance of the contract's proposition (Mutual
Assent), and hence is irrevocable.[17]

And this is why filing an Objection, Notice of Defect and Rejection of Benefits to
the King, objecting to your involuntary use of Federal Reserve Notes, carries no
retroactive force or effect with it back into preceding years.[18] It is a Principle of Law mentioned over and over again in Contract Law
books that silence can effect ratification in the context of a benefit assertion.[19]

Remember that to really understand a doctrine, we need to examine it from manifold
trajectories; and in so viewing, from a Judge's perspective, what the Ratification
Doctrine is trying to avoid, we find that to allow the annulment of a contract on
repudiation grounds on anything less than a firm and positive "no," has the
direct effect of working a Tort on the other party, since benefits were transferred from
one party to the next.[20]

The application of this Ratification Doctrine is not restricted to favor the
Government in the evidentiary presumptions of consent that it creates, as the Supreme
Court holds this Doctrine to be binding on all persons dragged into its machinery.[21]

The application of this Ratification Doctrine in the area of the Citizenship
Contract does create an invisible contract, as the burden to prove that the contract does
not exist then falls on the individual, with the King not required to prove or adduce
anything. This Doctrine is held operational against everyone indiscriminately as the
Principle that it is, when the factual circumstances warrant its provident application;
this even includes drawing inferences against the Congress itself.[22]

There is an old Roman saying that "... He who remains silent certainly does
not speak, but nevertheless it is true that he does not deny."[23] The situation expressed by that legal truism has been the source of some
blurry confusion in our Law of Contracts. Though acceptance of an Offer is usually made by
spoken or written words, quite often the Offer may call for act or authorization requiring
some other mode of acceptance. As the Offeror is the "Czar of his Offer," such
acts, when induced by the Offeree, constitute the acceptance.[24]

In such cases of negotiated commercial contracts, now there is something here
explicit by which to judge the intention of the parties; but as we shift over to invisible
juristic contracts, where the mere passive conduct of the Offeree (you and me) is claimed
to be an acceptance of benefits by Government, now the question is more difficult -- as
some of the requisite indicia applicable to Laws governing commercial contracts has to be
laid aside; like Mutual Assent.[25]

However, rather than Patriots fighting an area of grey where there is some de
minimis merit to the Government's position, it might be best to simply accept the
application of the Ratification Doctrine, accept the fact that invisible contracts
are in effect by your silent passive benefit acceptance and refusal to explicitly disavow
and reject benefits, as generally held by Judges - but then turn around and walk away from
the contract for other reasons, like Failure of Consideration.[26]

So the assertion by the King of his Status as a Holder in Due Course (and
therefore normally protected from any defense that you may throw at him via a Federal
Judge in an Income Tax grievance) then becomes meaningless: If you first Notice the King
out and Object with a Rejection of Benefits, and have so Objected timely. Failure to serve
a Notice of Defect on the King is fatal, as without that Objection by you, the King
retains his protective Holder in Due Course Status, and with that Status you have
absolutely no substantive defense to assert against him.

Question: How do you Object?

In Objecting to Federal Reserve Notes, we need to be mindful of the fact that
Federal Judges normally do not take Judicial Notice of the Federal Reserve Note equity
attachment question. By the end of this Letter, you will see the larger and more important
invisible contracts to be dealt with, if a pure and correct severance of yourself away
from the adhesive siphon of the Bolshevik Income Tax is to be perfected. Primarily, they
search the record for the political contract of Citizenship, and when Citizenship is
found, generally they stop right there and then. However, if dealing with a Denizen or
some type of non-resident alien, Federal Judges then shift their attention over to finding
some Commercial benefits that were accepted, in order to justify the extraction of Income
Taxes out of the poor fellow's pockets, acting Ministerially as enforcement agents the way
they do. So although Federal Judges find it unnecessary to take Notice of your acceptance
of Federal Reserve Notes at the present time, when all other political and Commercial
contracts have been correctly severed, this one remaining Commercial contract is going to
be an item that needs to be wrestled with, in advance of its apparent necessity.

So if three years from now the IRS throws a prosecution at you, and you argue
non-attachment of liability to Title 26, so called, based on a pure severance of Equity,
then how will you prove what your state of mind was in 1986, as it pertains to the
Federal Reserve Note use and recirculation question? Remember that the claimed state of
mind of a Party is an affirmative defense. The person asserting the defense has the
burden to prove its merit, and reasonably so. The King does not have to prove that you
entered into the acceptance and beneficial use of Federal Reserve Notes with profitable
expectations in your mind. Such a positive, beneficial, and Commercial Federal Reserve
Note use assumption is automatically inferred by the Commercial nature of those Notes and
the "Public Notice" Status of the King's Title 26 statutes, and so you have to
prove the opposite. How are you going to prove what your state of mind was in 1986?
Are you going to subpoena your wife into the Courtroom and ask her to tell the Court what
you said three years earlier in 1986?

"Oh, yes. I remember. Hank said that he didn't like using them things."

Well that is not much, and that is not the kind of an Objection, Notice of Protest,
and document state of mind that the Supreme Court will respect. So what we need to
do in order to Object timely, is to file a specific Objection with the Secretary of the
Treasury, and simply tell him what your state of mind is at the present time; and
synchronously record that document in a Public Place. Documents written by individuals are
often very strong pieces of evidence to prove a person's state of mind, and will,
under some circumstances, directly overrule another person's first-person oral testimony
on grounds relating to the Parole Evidence Rule (most often such circumstances
surface in Probate proceedings in Surrogate's Court when a Will or its Codicil is being
contested). If the IRS has a prosecution in gestation against you at the present time here
in 1985, and the IRS is moving against you in some manner for the years, say, 1982 and
1983, then filing this Notice of Protest and Objection will have no retroactive effect.
Filing this Objection at the present time merely documents your state of mind at
the present time, and so if the IRS moves against you in three years, this preventative
step you take at the present time is interesting prosecution annulment material.[27]

Since the King's Attorney will present some old bank account that you had gotten
rid of years earlier, and will conveniently not show your recessions to the Judge at the
time the Summons is signed, none of this Status correction material will likely deflect
the original initiation of a prosecution itself.

In your Objection and Notice of Protest, we might want to mention that you are
using Federal Reserve Notes for minimum survival purposes only, and that even this use is
reluctant, because in a previous day and in a previous era, the King used his police
powers to seal a monopoly on currency instruments, and so now you have no choice in
selecting between different currency instruments to use -- and the involuntary adhesive
attachment of Title 26 civil liability that occurs while you are being backed into such a
corner, occurs against your will and over your objection.

Your state of mind is not one of beneficial acceptance and enjoyment of
Federal Reserve Notes, but one of a forced de minimis coercion. You are not using
Federal Reserve Notes for Commercial profit or gain, but such use is out of practical
necessity since the King has physically removed all currency competitors from the
marketplace under his penal statutes and literally by physical duress; and so now your use
of Federal Reserve Notes is by lack of alternatives to select from, not freedom of choice.
By such monopoly tactics, the King is engaging in unfair Trade Practices, which if you or
I did the identical same thing, we would be incarcerated for it under numerous
Racketeering and Sherman Anti-Trust criminal statutes. Yet the forced monopoly of a
currency serves no beneficial public interest,[28] and
is actually an instrumentality to work magnum damages on us all after the King
replaces his initial hard currency later on with a paper currency (which has now
happened). Remember that Federal Judges see important benefits in everything the King
does, and there are legitimate benefits in having a uniform national currency to pursue
Commercial enrichment with -- when those benefits were sought after voluntarily.[29]

Judges perceive of those benefits as being related to the Legal Tender status of
the King's Currency, among other things. What Federal Judges do not see collectively is
that those FRN's possess only those benefits that any widely accepted circulating currency
would also offer, and are the same benefits that privately circulating notes and coins did
in fact offer here in the United States prior to the Civil War. The King is not entitled
to demand taxation reciprocity by merely replacing benefits originating from private mints
with benefits originating from the Congress under the cloak, cover, and duress of penal
statutes. So by enacting that succession of penal monopoly statutes that shut down
competitors, the King has transferred the origin of currency benefits away from private
mints and banks, over to himself. A forced uniform national currency serves only the
private financial enrichment objectives of the King by getting everyone into Interstate
Commerce, among other things, and also serves the objectives of Special Interest Groups
who very much want to see the King circulate paper currency expressly for the purpose of
perfecting our enscrewment -- if it were not so, the King would not have had to use penal
statutes and armed stormtroopers in the 1800's to enforce the acceptance of his currency
monopoly lex. If a single national currency medium did in fact serve everyone's
best interest, if everyone wanted to use the King's paper money, then why did the King
have to resort to the display of physical force when initiating such a currency monopoly
by police powers intervention in the 1800's, and now unilaterally use that monopoly to
administratively coerce people into contractual situations they did not otherwise want or
enter into?

Therefore, you do not accept any Consideration the King is handing you when Federal
Reserve Notes circulate into your possession (and remember that the King's Legal Tender
Statutes have very much enhanced the market value of Federal Reserve Notes). And that such
use of Federal Reserve Notes is occurring against your will and over your objection and
Protest, for, inter alia, want of alternatives, and with the reason why there are
no alternatives is due to Federal monopoly penal statutes forbidding such alternatives,
and that such a monopoly is an unfair restraint of trade (unfair because it is
unnecessary) anyone else gets incarcerated for.

Remember that in dealing with Federal Judges, you need to "hit the nail right
on the head," and by rejecting Federal benefits, and then explaining your rejection
through chronologically sequential presentations of facts and of reasoned legal arguments;
when that has been done, then where once there was a Courtroom hurricane of unbridled
retortional ensnortment by Federal Judges, designed to rub in, in no uncertain terms,
their strong philosophical disapproval of Tax Protestors -- now suddenly in contrast,
everything changes over to a quiescent environment.[30]

Additional objections along the lines that Warburg and his Gremlin brothers in
crime, the Rothschilds, through their ownership of the Federal Reserve System, are third
party beneficial interest holders, and that use of the police powers for the private
enrichment of a Special Interest Group is unlawful, since under Supreme Court rulings,
when the King enters into Commercial activity, his Status descends to the same level as
other merchants,[31] and that any other American
merchant who pulled off such a gun barrel monopoly grab would be incarcerated for doing
so. Numerous Contract Law books provide a rich abundance of defenses to assert against
Negotiable Instruments.[32]

Numerous defenses to assert in your Objection and Notice of Protest against the use
of Federal Reserve Notes attaching liability to Title 26 due to their Status as
circulating Commercial Negotiable Instruments involve both Real[33] and Personal Defenses.[34]

Some of the defenses you could claim include undue influence,[35] absence or failure of Consideration,[36]
moral fraud,[37] necessity, unilateral adhesion
contract made in restraint of trade,[38] economic
duress,[39] and the like.

Some of those Objections and statements are milktoast, and will later fall apart
and collapse under attack by the King's Attorneys in adversary proceedings, and properly
so. Reason: The Use and recirculation of Commercial Federal Reserve Notes necessarily
involves a Contract Law factual setting, and so our arguments along the lines of the
King's basic unfairness in sealing up his national currency monopoly, etc., are only
peripheral arguments; only direct coercion in the use of Federal Reserve Notes is strong
enough to strip the King of his Status of a Holder in Due Course. And unfairness
arguments sounding in the Tort of third party Special Interest Group penal statute
sponsorship and of Congressional intrigue in 1913, even though very accurate factually,
are way off base, if we are going into the Supreme Court under a factual setting calling
for Contractual Law settlement reasoning.

But for us right now, which Objection reason that we stated, either stands or falls
when under attack later, is not important. And what is important is denying the King his
protective Status as a Holder in Due Course against you (if the King is a Holder
in Due Course, the Principle is that we have no defenses to assert against him), by
filing your Notice of Protest and related corrigendum (meaning filed in an
interlocutory state in contemplation of secondary enhancement or error correction at a
later time). But some of those arguments we listed will survive, as the naked facts
surrounding the forceful acquisition of the King's monopoly on national currency are quite
authentic, and elements can be raised to take the factual setting out of Contract Law and
into Tort Law where, at least as a point of beginning, those arguments then become
relevant [however, those arguments probably won't even be addressed for other reasons]. So
we are exactly on line in some areas (assuming the Case was properly plead by referring to
the Supreme Court rulings on the declension in Status the King experiences when the King
engages in Commercial activity).[40]

So the final analysis is not important right now. Getting a general Notice of
Protest documenting the situational infirmities to the other party; invoking Tort Law to
govern the factual setting surrounding your involuntary use of Federal Reserve Notes; and
stating that there has been a Failure of Consideration; as your state of mind
is what is important, and the detailed judicial affirmation or rejection of your specific
Protest reasons can occur later in adversary proceedings. Failure to object is fatal, and
failure to object timely is equally as fatal, as you have no right to ask the Judiciary to
help you weasel out of the terms of contracts you originally intended to benefit from
(which is necessarily inferred when no timely Objection was filed on your part). If we
have corrected our Status, we filed our Objections timely, and we still lose, and the
reasons why we lose on this issue have their seminal point of origin in the King's police
power tactics in the 1800's, then it would then be time to consider dealing with the King
on the same terms the King's Treasury Agents dealt with the two remaining die-hard
California Coin Mints: Out of the barrel of a gun.[41]

With the prosecution of Individuals, whose status is near lily white, being
sandbagged at low administrative and judicial levels, then such an aggressive retortional
atmosphere of confrontation is quite unlikely to occur. But until those circumstances do
happen, then let's not badmouth the Judiciary, because as for the past and present, Principles
of Nature rule in the corridors of the United States Supreme Court, to the extent that
they are able to apply such majestic Principles to such pathetic factual settings they are
frequently presented with -- with petitioners and criminal Defendants who are not entitled
to prevail under any circumstances, as contracts are in effect.

Subject to these following qualifications, the filing of this Objection on the
involuntary use of Federal Reserve Notes will arrest the movement of the King's Agents in
a civil prosecution against you on this particular adhesive attachment of King's Equity
Jurisdiction. But the most interesting reason why you now reluctantly use Federal Reserve
Notes is yet to come; and it is the one reason the King's Attorneys will never be able to
tear apart and get judicially annulled [it will be sandbagged before it gets annulled].
And it is the one reason why even an otherwise reluctant Supreme Court might just respect
this Objection, regardless of how irritating it may be for some imps nestled in the
Judiciary, since the effect of this one last Objection automatically vitiates the most
solemn written contracts ever sealed.

Your Objection might want to contain the following:

1. An historical overview of the gun barrel and penal statute factual setting
surrounding the acquisition of a national currency monopoly by the King, with the
authorities for your statements being cited;

2. Stating in all of your Objections and Notices of Defects, that your occasional
use of Federal Reserve Notes is involuntary, and transpires because you are seeking to
avoid being incarcerated as an accessory to the criminal circulation of illegal currency
under Federal statutes.

That's right. That is the real reason why you now reluctantly use Federal Reserve
Notes: Not because you want to, and not necessarily because of what some Treasury Agents
did in California in the 1800's, but because if you now started using your own currency
instruments here today in 1985, then the King will incarcerate you for doing so; and
therefore we have no choice but to use the King's designated currency against our Will and
over our Objection.[42]

Your entrance into that closed, private domain of Interstate Commerce, by the use
and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes (the King's Money), is involuntary by reason of
pure physical coercion. Remember that the character of every act you do, and every
prospective act you avoid doing, depends upon the documented background circumstances
behind which the act is either done or avoided,[43]
and your ability to document and prove your state of mind is absolutely mandatory
as a point of beginning: So let's not snicker at Judges as they toss out arguments based
merely upon some recollected memory reconstructions from out of the past. If you claim
that your involvement with the King in his closed private domain of Interstate Commerce
occurred by reason of physical coercion, then the first question a Federal Judge will be
asking himself is:

Who coerced you, when did this coercion take place, and what were the background
circumstances surrounding the coercion?

What the Judge will then do is to make an assessment of the overall legitimacy of
your claims. Talking about the naked aggression of Treasury Agents in California in the
1800's is one interesting story out of the past, but talking about a direct operation of
coercion on you today in the 1980's is even better. Remember that lightly claiming duress
and coercion is one easy thing to do, but proving such coercion is another. Absent a
presentation of the King's monopoly acquisition tactics, of his snuffing out currency
(coins, bank notes, and private paper) competitors in the 1800's, and of his contemporary
eagerness to incarcerate competitors and private currency lone wolves, absent such factual
background material your claims of duress and coercion to invalidate the Contract Law
jurisprudential setting of Federal Reserve Notes, as it applies to you, are possible
candidates to fall apart and collapse before the Judiciary. So tell the Court about the
currency history of the King, and his acquisition of a currency monopoly out of a barrel
of a gun, and then cite exactly, and then quite directly, the verbatim wording of the
Federal statutes that criminalizes your acquisition and recirculation of any other
Currency Instrument other than the King's specified Legal Tender for the extinguishment of
your private debts, in order to prove your state of mind.[44]

The reason why it is to your advantage to talk about these historical aspects and
give a Federal Judge a long chronicled history of the King's gun barrel muscle tactics you
are objecting to, is because their Federal Benchbook is silent on it (except for numerous
1800's Case quotations), and so very few Federal Judges actually know anything about the
currency history of the United States, and when Judges have been confronted with accurate
presentations of historical facts, they can and will rule against Government and reverse
themselves publicly in Opinions,[45] and also quietly
in post-Opinion regrets.[46]

So giving Federal Judges a more factually detailed presentation of history, than is
carefully given to them in those Government Seminars of theirs, operates to your
advantage. Your use of Federal Reserve Notes, under objection to avoid incarceration, is
the kind of a documented coercion factual setting that is going to give the Supreme Court
something to think about, if the grievance ever gets to them. This involuntary entrance
into King's Commerce by reason of threat of incarceration severs this civil attachment of
Equity Jurisdiction that is otherwise airtight for those folks not Objecting substantively
and timely [because benefits were rejected and there is now a Failure of Consideration],
and completes our efforts to convert the basic Contract Law factual setting that the use
of Commercial Federal Reserve Notes necessarily mandates, somewhat over into Tort Law (so
our unfairness arguments then can become relevant).[47]

That documented involuntary behavior to avoid incarceration is the one magic
liability -- vitiating line that Judges never deviate from, and that incarceration threat
is the kind of an Objection that Judges want to hear, and that is the kind of an Objection
that the Supreme Court will respect. But as always, it is the waiver and rejection of
Royal benefits that is the most important item to address; and the King's Legal Tender
Statutes have very much enhanced the market value and general Commercial attractiveness of
those Federal Reserve Notes, so as viewed from the perspective of a Federal Judge, when
you accepted and then recirculated Federal Reserve Notes, you have accepted a Federal
benefit.[48]

So the King has the requisite standing jurisdiction to use his police powers to
seal up monopolies on currency and postal services: But when he threatens to cause those
penal statutes to operate against you, the King can then forget about the assertion of any
adhesive revenue enhancement Equity Jurisdiction on us, if you will but so much as Object
substantively and timely so as to trigger Consideration Failure.

You should remember that filing such an Objection, say next year in 1986, will only
assist you in a future prosecution. If the IRS is going after you today for 1981 to 1985,
then your failure to Object timely was fatal on your part, as this Federal Reserve Note
Objection carries no retroactive force with it. Remember that the King's throwing a
prosecution against you is an adversary proceeding. If the King's Attorneys make the
assertion that you had accepted and use Federal Reserve Notes (with the long history of
Consideration Law to support the King in this area going back into English history and the
Medieval Ages), and you retort by saying that you didn't want to use Federal Reserve Notes
without being able to explain exactly how and why your use was involuntary, then the
Federal Judge has no choice but to rule against you, as in that setting the preponderance
of the evidence favors the King. So the King wins by your own half-baked minimum efforts
and default in proving your assertion. But if you do cite authorities, quote the King's
criminal statutes verbatim, and prove everything, then there is not a Federal Judge in the
entire United States who could rightfully hold that your use of Federal Reserve Notes is
voluntary for Commercial gain, and that an adhesive attachment of revenue Equity
Jurisdiction attaches for this reason (and that specifically includes the Supreme Court).
The King may have numerous other Equity hooks into you depending on your individual
circumstances, but he will be restrained from using this one hook against you.

[As I said in the Armen Condo Letter, in a criminal prosecution setting, it is a
general policy custom that the Judiciary requires a much higher evidentiary standard of
knowledge of wrongdoing and of Commercial enrichment experienced in the closed private
domain of King's Commerce; but as you should see by now, through a strict technical
reading of Title 26, no bank accounts are ever needed to perfect a 7203 prosecution. By
its own statutory wording, either your documented involvement in Interstate Commerce, over
the minimum liability threshold level, or your Citizenship Contract, attaches all civil
and criminal liability the King thinks he needs. But Federal Judges do not necessarily
think like the King thinks, and in a criminal prosecution for Title 26 infractions, the
Judiciary, by custom, would like to see a higher level of administrative and merchant
status than the mere use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes infers. That higher
evidentiary standard that Federal Judges hold was all that I meant in the Armen Condo
Letter. And since the Federal Judge had Armen Condo's bank account contracts in front of
him, the Constitution then became irrelevant in Armen's Restraining Order defense.
So, generally, what the Federal Bench wants to see is some type of a contract before they
will consent to a criminal prosecution for Title 26 penal infractions. There are
exceptions where such instruments of Conclusive Evidence like bank accounts are not
pursued that much, but those exceptions do not apply to you or me. To my knowledge, no one
in the United States has ever been incarcerated at any time for any penal infraction of
Title 26, with the only evidence being acceptance and beneficial use of Federal Reserve
Notes in Interstate Commerce. Evidence of the acceptance and beneficial use of Federal
Reserve Notes is quite frequently adduced into criminal prosecutions by the King's
Attorneys in the Public Show Trial, but only a collaborating secondary evidence behind
serious contracts the IRS quietly gave the Judge in his Chambers before the prosecution
even started. This Equity hook the King has up his Royal sleeve (use of Federal Reserve
Notes) is generally applicable against you as Prima Facie primary evidence only in
the lower evidentiary standards of a free wheeling civil arena.]

So important for us is the filing of the Objection and Notice of Protest, and
filing the objections timely. And each of these Objections should be separate and distinct
from each other (Admiralty/Birth Certificate, Equity/Social Security, Commercial/Holders
in Due Course, etc.). What happens if the Supreme Court rules some day of in the
future that King's Revenue Equity Jurisdiction still attaches to involuntary users of
Federal Reserve Notes? We will then have to acquire our rights from our contemporary King
the same way Ben Franklin and George Washington acquired their rights: Out of the barrel
of a gun.[49]

We always want to take a moment and examine ourselves in known impending grievances
from the viewpoint of our adversary, in order to see things like a judge; and when dealing
with an attack on the acceptance and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes, an argument
will likely be advanced to try and discredit your objection:

Your adversary will argue that Federal Law, not State Law of the UCC governs your
attack on Federal Reserve Notes. Their arguments are based on numerous federal court
rulings -- one of which is when the Supreme Court once ruled[50] that the rights, duties, and liabilities of the United States on
Commercial paper are issues that are to be governed exclusively by federal law, and not
governed by state law. Therefore, your adversaries will argue that your reliance on the
UCC, which are a collection of state statutes, as a source of authority, is ill-founded
and that you are not entitled to prevail. This argument does not concern us at all, since
in reading Clearfield Trust, the reason why the Supreme Court wants federal
Commercial paper to be governed by Federal Law and not State Law is because they do not
want the Federal Government subject to 50 different rules and restrictions proprietary to
each state:

"But reasons which may make state law at times the appropriate federal rule
are singularly inappropriate here. The issuance of Commercial paper by the United States
is on a vast scale and transactions in that paper from issuance to payout will commonly
occur in several states. The application of state law, even without the conflict of laws
rules of forum, would subject the rights and duties of the United States to exceptional
uncertainty. It would lead to great diversity in results by making identical transactions
subject to the vagaries of the laws of the several states."[51]

Since the Uniform Commercial Code is just that, i.e., uniform throughout all
of the states except one (Louisiana), having the issuance and Commercial use of Federal
Reserve Notes subject to this uniform code, in the absence of any federal law to the
contrary, is most appropriate. Subjecting the rights and duties of the United States and
it's pet corporation, the Federal Reserve, to the uniform rules of the UCC to fill in
missing gaps in Federal Commercial Laws, offers to expose the United States to no
exception uncertainty. Although there very much is a Federal Law Merchant,[52] State Law is silent on the matter;[53]
and so now that leaves Federal Judges making the law.[54]

Remember that the Principles of Nature the UCC codifies into sequential
statutes is merely the old Law Merchant of our Fathers, and that our Fathers merely
codified reason, logic, and common sense; and the Uniform Commercial Code, even though it
is state law, is merely cited to both fill pronouncement voids in the Federal Law
Merchant, and as simply the best pronouncement of Principles of Nature denominated
to apply to Commercial factual settings.

The Principle we invoke when coming to grips with these Federal Reserve Notes is
merely common sense: That a person we are trying to avoid doing business with (the King)
loses his expectation of our conformance to his statutes, when we place him on our Prior
Notice that Defects are present in the paper he is circulating, and that we are not
accepting the benefits otherwise inuring to the Holders and Recirculators of his Federal
Reserve Notes, by reason of involuntary use. Everything in this Letter is all
inter-related to some extent; earlier, I discussed the Ratification Doctrine, by
which Judges hold that silence on your part, in the context of an assertion being made
against you, constitutes your acceptance of the proposition that you are silent on (and
for good reasons: Because benefits are being accepted by you). This Notice of Defect
reverses that state of silence, and the King is forced to experience a declension in his
coveted status of expecting a perfect non-defense case against you, based on your
terminating the acceptance of the benefits of the use and recirculation of Federal Reserve
Notes. The UCC largely codified all of this since merchants have it out with each other
all the time on this very question with Negotiable Instruments, and as such the UCC gave
every possible thing and every party nice proprietary names and labels so that attorneys
and judges can all deal with these factual settings with everyone speaking the same
vocabulary. So, if the UCC is technically non-applicable to Federal Reserve Notes, then we
don't really care, as the UCC is no more than codifying Nature, as Principles operate
transparent to changes in factual settings. If we are Objecting to a thing, like a Note,
then the Maker has lost his expectation of not having any grievances to deal with on that
thing (Note); and that is only common sense. And we cite the UCC as the best codified
pronouncement of that Doctrine, and we encourage our adversaries to find any federal
statute inconsistent with the UCC's pronouncements.[55]

As you well know, Mr. May, it is a Principle of Nature that an ounce of
prevention is worth ten tons of labor exerted later on in patching up. And merely
preparing your multiple objections now, in writing, will spare a person from substantial
expenses in depositions and the like later, as the collection of evidence, is, generally
speaking, an expensive and time-consuming process. With rare exception, all of the Patriot
lawsuits I have examined never involved any form of Depositions or Interrogatories being
take on the Defendant (and the Patriot wonders why he loses). All of that is neatly
avoided by a few preventative steps.

[1] If there are Holders in Due Course, are
there also Holders not in Due Course? Certainly there are. The
volume of Contract Law in this area is quite extensive, and in this brief Letter, only a
brief profiling synopsis is appropriate. [return]

[2] Federal Reserve Notes are debt obligations of
the United States Government. See Title 12, Section 411. [return]

[3] "United States coins and currency
(including Federal Reserve Notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and
national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign
gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts." - Title 31, Section 5103 (September, 1982). [return]

[4] So looking inversely at the entire King's
Equity pie of taxing hooks that he has got into you, only a totally pure decontamination
of yourself away from that multiplicitious array of political and Commercial benefits the
King is offering, of all benefits up and down the entire adhesive line of largely
invisible juristic contracts, will properly sever yourself away from the adhesive
administrative mandates of Title 26. [return]

[5]Prima Facie Evidence is moderately good
and acceptable evidence, although not air tight, and stands as valid unless countermanded.
On the other hand, Conclusive Evidence is strong and very difficult to challenge,
and is incontrovertible. [return]

[6] Remember that Consideration is a benefit you
enjoy. This prima facie Evidence Doctrine is replicated over and over again in
numerous books on Contract Law and Commercial Law. Our King did not invent this prima
facie Consideration Doctrine, as its seminal point of origin goes back into the Middle
Ages in England, which is before our King even existed. [Citations deleted]. [return]

[7] Yes, the benefits that were accepted by you
carried with them invisible hooks of reciprocity, so now, as uncomfortable as the hooks
are, contracts are in effect, and Patriot arguments sounding in the Tort of unfairness are
not relevant. [return]

[8] For a discussion on how the right of a first
debtor to come and operate a liability against a second ripple debtor, back to the first
debtor's creditor, see Rabbi Isaac Herzog, Chief Rabbi of Israel, in the Second Volume of Main
Institutes of Jewish Law, entitled "The Law of Obligations" (1967). [return]

[9] Starting with the Legal Tender Laws in
1862, then the National Banking Act in 1864, then the previously mentioned acts
outlawing private coin circulation, then an act in 1865 imposed a 10% tax on state bank
note issues. In Veazie Bank vs. Fenno [75 U.S. 533 (1869)], the Supreme Court
ruled that a tax of 10% on state bank notes in circulation was held to be Constitutional,
not only because it was a means of raising money, but that such a tax was an instrument to
put out of business such a competitive circulation of those private notes, against notes
issued by the King. The combined effect of those Civil War era penal statutes collectively
was to monopolize the entire American currency supply under Federal jurisdiction (which is
exactly what the King wanted). By these penal statutes, both privately circulated coins
and paper notes were outlawed, and die hard private mints were later purchased by the
King, and otherwise put out of business, permanently. And in the 1900's, under an
administrative regulation promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
Board, the issuance, if even for brief promotional purposes, of publicly circulating
private bank notes by member banks, is forbidden. [return]

[10] The Private Express Statutes remain today as
Title 38, Sections 601 to 608;
and Title 18, Sections 1693
to 1699. [return]

[11] Exemplary would be Fred Ferretti in
"Private Mail Delivery vs. The Letter of the Law," New York Times,
September 25, 1976. [return]

[12] United States Postal Service vs. Brennan,
574 F.2nd 712 (1978). There were no non-Commercial Status arguments made by the Brennans.
[return]

[13] See Ratification by an Undisclosed
Principal by Edwin Goddard in 2 Michigan Law Review 25 (1903). [return]

[15] See the Effect of Ratification as Between
the Principle and the Other Party by Floyd Mechem in 4 Michigan Law Review 269 (1905).
[return]

[16] "Where a contract has been made by one
person in the name of another, of a kind that the latter might lawfully make himself, and
the only defect is the lack of authority on the part of the person acting, the subsequent
ratification of that contract, while still in that condition, by the person on whose
behalf it was made and who is fully appraised of the facts, operates to cure the defect
and to establish the contract as his contract as though he had authorized it in the first
instance. From this time on, he is subject to all the obligations that pertain to the
transaction in the same manner and to the same extent that he would be had the contract
been made originally by him in person, or by his express authority. The other party may
demand and enforce on the part of the principle the full performance of the contract
entered into by his agent." - Floyd Mechem in The Effect of Ratification as
Between the Principle and the Other Party in 4 Michigan Law Review 269, at 269 (1905).
[return]

[17] The Law of Contracts requires mutual
assent to be an element present between the parties when contracts are entered into.
However, mutual assent is quite different from mental assent:

"In the field of contracts, as generally elsewhere, `We must look to the
outward expression of a person as manifesting his intention rather than to his secret and
unexpressed intention. The law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the
reasonable meaning of his words and acts." - Lucy and Lucy vs. Zehmer, 84
S.E.2nd 516, at 521 [Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (1954)].

Folks who believe that Mental (Intellectual) Assent is a necessary
ingredient to the formation of contracts are in error. A person can internally frown and
repel a contract in the back of his mind, but still be held to be bound by the contract
due to his exterior movements in accepting benefits. And as we shift over to discuss a Principle
of Nature regulating the commencement of invisible contracts thrown at folks by
Juristic Institutions, nothing changes there, either. Protestors claiming to be exempt
from being attached to expectations of taxation reciprocity by reason of no Mental
Assent being present, are in error: Because your exterior manifestations -- your
failure to explicitly and bluntly reject juristic benefits -- overrules whatever quiet
reservations you may have about the reciprocity expectations contained in the contract.
The other party to the contract (here, the other party is a Juristic Institution) has
absolutely no reasonable basis to consider the applicability of its contract with you by
probing into the corners of your mind and uncovering any latent reservations that may be
there. Therefore, only the act of coming out into the open and filing a blunt and explicit
Notice of Rejection of Benefits, has any reasonable meaning; and Protestors
claiming unfairness because Mental Assent is tossed aside and ignored are not
addressing the full spectrum of factual elements that judges consider when presented with
a contract enforcement prosecution. [return]

[18] Variations on this Ratification Doctrine
surface all throughout the Law. It surfaces in criminal prosecutions as an evidentiary law
requiring that circumstances be awarded priority over verbal communication or
non-communication in proving conspiracies (meaning that what you say or don't say is not
important as what you do). In Commercial contracts, Parole Evidence is oral or
verbal evidence, and the Parole Evidence Rule restrains a party to a contract from
using expectations and declarations from toning down the meat of a contract. (See UCC
2-202), since the lesser oral expectations were merged into the greater written
expectations. In the Uniform Commercial Code, the Ratification Doctrine appears in
Section 2-610, which states that the repudiation of a contract must be positive and
unequivocal; and it appears again in 2-606(b), which states that failure to make an
effective (strong) rejection constitutes acceptance. [return]

[19] The underlying Principles associated with
the Ratification Doctrine surface in criminal prosecutions, as it is often very
reasonable for Juries, too, to take special Notice and freely draw inferences and
conclusions from the Defendant's silence. In some Trials, Judges have characterized that
the effect of the Defendant remaining silent would be like:

"... the sun... shining with full blaze on the open eye." - State vs.
Cleaves, 59 Main 298, at 301 (1871). [return]

[21] I have seen lower State Courts apply the
Principle of Ratification under Tort Law factual settings. See Page vs. Keeves
[199 N.E. 131 (1935)], which held that a person assisting another in the commission of a
wrongful Tort act against another, or with knowledge approving of such act after it is
done, is liable in some manner as if he had committed the same wrongful act, if done for
his benefit [that's right Benefits Accepted] and he avails himself of its fruits.
The word Ratification does not appear anywhere in the Case Opinion, but the
Principle does at page 135.

"The doctrine of liability by Ratification in Tort Cases is abundantly
established. Indeed, this seems to have been the earliest form of it. By whatever methods
the act be adopted and approved, the principal becomes liable for the Tort as though he
had previously directed it. And it is not always necessary that the approval shall look to
the particular act. In the case of master and servant, for example, if the approval
establishes the relation, the master becomes responsible for any Torts committed within
its scope or which he would have been responsible had the relation been regularly
created...

"Ratification in Tort Cases is a distinct gain to the other party,
giving him a remedy against the principal while not depriving him of its remedy against
the wrong-doer himself." - The Effect of Ratification as Between the Principle and
the Other Party by Floyd Mechem in 4 Michigan Law Review 269, at 270 (1905). [return]

[22] "The fact that Congress has remained
silent..." - James vs. United States, 366 U.S. 213, at 220 (1961).

The Supreme Court has ruled that when the Congress remains silent on something,
then the Judiciary sets the limits -- as silence by the Congress is very significant and
presumptuous. Speaking about the Intergovernmental Taxation Immunity Doctrine
binding on both Federal and State Juristic Institutions [that I mentioned at the end of Citizenship]:

"Congress may curtail an immunity which might otherwise be implied... or
enlarge it beyond the point where, Congress being silent, the Court would set its
limits." - Helvering vs. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, at 411 [footnote #1]
(1937).

Yes, even the Congress of the United States is held to be accountable for its
silence. In footnote number 1 to Graves vs. New York [306 U.S. 466 (1939)], the Supreme Court
holds the silence of the Congress in areas of regulating Commerce as determinative of
federal policy. In Western Live Stock vs. Bureau of Revenue [303 U.S. 250 (1937)], the Supreme Court
discusses the implications of Congressional silence in the field of state taxation of
Interstate Commerce and its instrumentalities. Yes, silence is suggestive of
intentions in some instances, and everyone without exception (even the Congress of the
United States) is held accountable and responsible, at one time or another, for inferences
drawn from their silence.

... Even Heavenly Father uses this Principle of Nature in the continuation
of benefits and duties originating under Celestial Covenants by Saints, as silence by
Saints individually is deemed to be an automatic extension of the Covenant (only the
explicit disavowal of the Covenant can terminate the Covenant, while silencer retains the
operation of the Covenant in effect). [return]

[23] See Roscoe Pound in Readings in Roman Law,
Second Edition, at pages 25 to 26. [return]

[24] "The orthodox doctrine of the law of
contracts, particularly the Offer and Acceptance machinery, could not be
more familiar to most lawyers. We are long indebted to Professor Hohfeld, who has enabled
us to express the legal effect of an Offer as creating a power of acceptance [see W.
Hohfeld in Fundamental Legal Conceptions (1923); and also Corbin in Legal
Analysis and Terminology, 29 Yale Law Journal 163 (1919)]. Where an Offer is extended
by an Offeror, he permits the Offeree to exercise a power of acceptance that subjects the
Offeror to the legal relation called contract. The Offeror is said to be under a
correlative liability, because exercise of the power of acceptance by the Offeree creates
a right-duty relationship.

"After discussing the anatomy of Offers, the first year law student is
concerned with the exercise of the power of acceptance. At once he is confronted with
learning how the power may be exercised:

"... almost the first question to ask about an offer is: What particular kind
of acceptance did this Offer call for; and especially: Was it for a promise or was it for
an act." - Llewellyn in Our Case Law of Contract: Offer and Acceptance - Part
II, in 48 Yale Law Journal 779, at 780 (1939).

"Understanding his exploration in this fundamental area is the principle that
the Offeror is master of his Offer. He creates the Offer and may require the power of
acceptance to be exercised in any manner he deems necessary or desirable. To emphasize
this principle, students are typically confronted with a hypothetical Offer that requires
the Offeree to don an Uncle Sam costume, climb a greased flagpole, and, upon
reaching the gold dome at the top, whistle Yankee Doodle twice. The effect on the
impressionable first year student is significant. He will never forget that the Offeror is
master of his Offer, and he will often justify his position through the use of even more
outlandish hypotheticals. Of course, he is obliged to use hypotheticals, just as his
teacher was, since no recorded case makes the point so clearly." - John Murray in Contracts:
New Design for the Agreement Process, 53 Cornell Law Review 785, at 785 (1968).

Mr. Murray is correct, there is no recorded case that makes the point so
clearly, but by the time you have finished this Letter, you will see numerous unrecorded
cases of contract Offers by the King that are very structurally similar to climbing a
greased flagpole by the magnitude of the King's leverage involved, since the game starts
out with the cards being so heavily stacked against us, as our own ignorance and silence
work against us greatly. [return]

[25] The problems associated with Ratification
have been the subject of controversy by commentators.

"If a person whom I have not authorized to act as my agent has made in my name
with a third person a contract composed of mutual promises, and if the third person, who
originally believed in the authority of the assumed agent, has withdrawn from the
transaction and has communicated his withdrawal to the assumed agent or to me, can I,
nevertheless, thereafter, promptly upon learning of the contract, ratify the contract and
hold the third person? In short, by ratifying an unauthorized bilateral contract can I
hold the adverse party, although he has already withdrawn from the contract? ... The
questions underlying the problem go to the very foundation of the Doctrine of
Ratification." - Eugene Wambaugh in A Problem as to Ratification in 9
Harvard Law Review 60, at 60 (1895). [return]

[26] For commentary, see Notes, Silence as
Acceptance in the Formation of Contracts, 33 Harvard Law Review 595 (1919). The many
commercial contract cases cited and quoted therein should be distinguished from juristic
contracts. [return]

[27] One should not necessarily feel too
depressed over having failed to perform a positive act at some point in the past; a
correct understanding of handling factual settings is acquired experientially, and so
although knowledge frequently does come too late...

"Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely
because it comes too late." - Rose vs. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, at 575 (1978). [return]

[28] Mere declarations by the Congress that their
creation of a uniform national benefit constitutes a benefit, does not in fact reverse
facts that the damages associated with Congressionally originated money exceed the
benefits. The Congress once declared their attitude that their currency monopoly is a
benefit for us out here in the Countryside:

"In order to provide for the safer and more effective operation of a National
Banking System and the Federal Reserve System, to preserve for the people the full
benefits of the currency provided for by the Congress through the National Banking System
and the Federal Reserve System..." - Title 12, Section 95 (March, 1933).

Federal Judges are cognizant of the declaration of Congress that the issuance of a
currency by the Congress is considered to be a benefit; but declarations do not change
previous factual experiences. [return]

[29] In Veazie Bank vs. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533 (1869), the Supreme Court
ruled that it was the Constitutional right of Congress to provide a currency for the whole
Country; that this might be done by coin, United States notes, or notes of national banks;
and that it cannot be questioned that Congress may Constitutionally secure the Benefit
of such a currency to the people by appropriate legislation. [return]

[30] "Quiescent" means that the
environment is at rest, but only for a certain amount of time. [return]

[31] "Governments descent to the level of a
mere private corporation and takes on the character of a mere private citizen [where
commercial instruments are concerned]." - Bank of U.S. vs. Planters Bank, 22 U.S. 904 (1829).

"When governments enter the world of commerce, it is subject to the same
burdens as any private firm." - United States vs. Burr, 309 U.S. 242 (1939).

And the King is very much into Commerce when his Legal Tender Statutes and equity
co-endorser statutes [Title 12, Section 411] enhance the value of those
negotiable Federal Reserve Notes. [return]

[32] Exemplary would be, perhaps, the three
volume set of Treatise on Recession of Contracts and Cancellation of Written
Instruments by Henry Black (Vernon Law Book Company, Kansas City, Missouri);

And the huge voluminous set of Corbin on Contracts by Arthur Corbin, West
Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota;

Another is the 18 volume set of writings of Sam Williston entitled A Treatise on
the Law of Contracts, published by Baker, Voorhis & Company, Mount Kisco, New York
(1961). [return]

[33] Real defenses include those defenses that
arise out of the fact that no liability was created in the first place by your involuntary
use of Federal Reserve Notes. [return]

[34] Personal defenses are those defenses which
arise out of the relationship of the parties to each other. [return]

[35] Undue influence is generally understood to
be the power which one person wrongfully exercises over another in attempting to control
and influence the action of such other person. Both circumstantial as well as
direct evidence is acceptable for proving undue influence (which, like all other
defenses are affirmative defenses, and the burden falls on you to assert your position
well). [return]

[36] Remember that Consideration is a benefit,
and mere issuance of the Note itself has always been prima facie evidence that
Consideration (a benefit) was accepted by the Holder (you). Your placing the King on
"Prior Notice" that benefits are being declined and waived, and that infirmities
are present, is your attack on Consideration. [return]

[37] Either fraud per se or in the
alternative, Fraud in the Factum can be either Personal or a Real Defense,
depending upon the factual setting (which we will now alter to favor ourselves). Law books
are generally reluctant to define the contours of just what fraud is, since no sooner do
the contours of fraud get settled, then some scheming crook stretches those contours by
figuring out new ways to pull something off. But if you can get a recognizance of fraud,
then what is absolutely certain is the consequence of such fraud: As it vitiates anything
and everything that it enters into. But fraud is an affirmative defense, and properly so,
and the burden is on you to prove that such fraud exists. [return]

[38] Commercial bargains made by people are
generally deemed to be null and void if made in conflict of Public Policy, i.e.,
prostitution, gambling, usury, etc. The King's monopoly grab on a single national currency
is very much contemporary national Public Policy, so arguing this line in a Contract Law
Jurisprudential setting is going to be difficult, unless the correct pleading of the Money
Issue is presented. [return]

[39] Duress does not need to be directly
experienced by the party claiming it as a defense, as duress used by one of the Holders,
with the secondary effect of the duress operating only indirectly against you, is quite
sufficient as a defense. [return]

[40] "When governments enter the world of
commerce, it is subject to the same burdens as any private firm." - United States
vs. Burr, 309 U.S. 242 (1939). [return]

[41] "And honest Men would be expos'd a
ready Prey to Villains, if they were never allow'd to make use of Violence in Resisting
their Attacks." - The Law of Nature and of Nations, by Samuel de Puffendorf
[Translated from the French by Basil Kennett (1729)]. [return]

[42] Is the King really interested in using penal
statutes to enforce a currency monopoly, down to the present day? Yes, he very much is,
and those who deal in that currency which the King has seen fit to declare illegal in his
kingdom will find themselves dealing with the King's Agents at gun point.

...Being in the United States felt good to the Braselton Family, who came over here
from Manchester, England in the 1880's. They settled down in rural Georgia, a remote 52
miles northeast of Atlanta. This was 52 miles from nowhere, in the middle of nowhere. This
was an enterprising family with commercial enrichment being a natural family attribute.
The elder Mr. Braselton borrowed $2,000 and started in business with his brother at the
age of 8 [a great deal of money for those days when silver dollars circulated and
$1,500 bought a nice house]. Soon, a farming supply store opened up, followed by a
succession of other stores and business interests. What was first a single building was
now a row of buildings lining both sides of a street, and surrounded by neighborhoods of
residents. House of Braselton essentially grew into a town unto itself. Today, among the
visible merchant establishments, there are the Braselton Banking Company, the
Braselton Super Market, the Braselton Flea Market, the Braselton Furniture
and Appliance Store, the Braselton Monument Company, and the Braselton
Service Station. The State of Georgia granted their hamlet political status as a town,
and named it the Town of Braselton. After building up a bank and virtually all of
the supply stores in town, the Braselton Family then built a high school for the town's
residents. There is no police department in Braselton, there is no fire department and no
social services -- and, not surprisingly, being no benefits, there are no taxes to be
concerned with. No, looters and Tory Aristocrats never did succeed in gaining a foothold
in Braselton. Over the years from 1880 down to the present day, the Braselton stores have
had their trials and reversals: They have had an intermittent fire, and in 1920 a tornado
leveled many buildings, but the family always rebuilt. The Mayor of Braselton has always
been a Braselton, and the family enterprises are managed by a family triumvirate,
affectionately called THE 3-B's [see the Atlanta Constitution ("Three
Braseltons of Braselton Business Partners Over 50 Years"), (May 31, 1939)].

Today, when I visited Braselton, only a handful of coins and coupons ["Coupon
Check"] mounted on a picture frame remain as reminiscent icons of the grand days of
the 1800's, when anyone could issue their own currency without fear of being incarcerated.
The history and lore of Braselton, Georgia is written and mounted on several walls in the Braselton
Brothers Hardware Store. Walking into that store, one gets a feeling of power
relationships, as photographs from Presidents, Governors, and Senators, and other
Braselton Family Members hang in open view. With such a display of high powered
acquaintances, I almost felt as if I was in David Rockefeller's office in the Chase
Manhattan Bank -- but there the feeling of similarity stops. In the Braselton Hardware
Store, one feels a sweet and pleasant spirit permeating the store, as if one great
American family resides here. In David Rockefeller's office, also adorned with photographs
of powerful acquaintances, the spirit in the air is one of an icy demon chill. Once while
travelling up in an elevator in the Chase Manhattan Bank, my knees started to rattle when
passing the 17th Floor, where His Excellency used to maintain his nest. The idea came to
me, as I tried to stop the shivers, that the Astral High Command was holding an important
conference, and that the demons were planning to pull off something grand. Being primarily
in the farming supply business, the Braselton Family developed a Credit System based on Trade
Certificates to handle the seasonal nature of surrounding farmers coming in to trade
crops for supplies. For store employees and local residents, the Braseltons had their own
coins minted, and dollar equivalency coupons printed to be used as currency. Copper and
nickel based coins were minted in numerous equivalency denominations under $1.00; the
paper coupons ["Coupon Checks"] were similar to those coupon issued by movie
theaters and carnivals, and were available in coupon books. The issuance and circulation
of coins and currency by The 3-B's was not only illegal, it was criminal, but in a
friendly small town in Georgia composed of class people, who concerned themselves with
technical banking statutes in Washington?

Over the years since the 1880's, while foreign wars came and went, the Braselton
Family enterprises prospered and grew independent of the King -- but eventually the party
would be over. As is always the case, one little goof messes up the soup for everyone
else, and the Braselton's turn came in the early 1950's.

...One day in the early 1950's, a Braselton minted coin found its way into a gas
station in Atlanta. In turn it was passed on to a bank, who could not redeem it into
currency they are comfortable with. So the bank called the United States Secret Service to
report this heinous criminal outrage being commercially orchestrated right up State
Highway 53 in Braselton. From out of their offices in the Atlanta Federal Building
descended a troop of Federal Agents on Braselton [they always like to put on a big show],
and The 3-B's surrendered immediately.The 3-B's would have surrendered on a
phone call, but agents for the King earn their pay in terrorem, and like to use a
show force to make a statement. The King's Agents brought with them guns and a
slice of lex from Title 18
["Crimes"], so now the private minting of Braselton coins and currency coupons
was over with. In time, the Braseltons also disbanded the farmer's Trade Certificates
for other reasons.

Question: Will the King use his guns to prevent you from circulating your own
currency? Yes, he will. [return]

[43] "The character of every act depends
upon the circumstances in which it is done." - United States vs. Schenck, 249 U.S. 47, at 52 (1918). [return]

[44] One of the statutory devices used by the
King to grab for himself the currency circulating around the United States was to make it
a criminal act for someone to countersign or deliver to any association, company, or
person, any circulating notes not expressly allowed by the King:

"...That it shall be unlawful for any officer acting under the provisions of
this act to countersign or deliver to any association, or to any other company or person,
any circulating notes contemplated by this act, except as herein before provided, and in
accordance with the true intent and meaning of this act. Any officer who shall violate the
provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction
thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding double the amount so countersigned and
delivered, and imprisonment not less than one year and not exceeding fifteen years, at the
discretion of this court in which he shall be tried." - 13 United States Statutes
at Large 107, Chapter 106, Section 27 ["National Banking Act"], 38th
Congress, First Session (1864).

Introduced into the Senate by John Sherman and the House by Samuel Hooper, the
Rothschild Gremlins had done their payoffs very well, as both this National Banking Act
and the Coinage Act of 1873 were the products of intrigue by Gremlins that
originated in Europe.

By the time the 1940's came around, 13 U.S. Statutes at Large had been
changed slightly and placed into Title 12, Section 581 ["Unauthorized Issue of
Circulating Notes"], with the threatened incarceration retained. In June of 1948, the
Congress repealed Title 12, Section 581, and so today the King retains his monopoly on
circulating instruments by a combination of administrative lex prohibiting banking
associations from issuing currency, and also by prohibiting anyone anywhere from
circulating their own coins:

"Whoever makes, issues, circulates, or pays out any note, check, memorandum,
token, or other obligation for a less sum than $1.00, intended to circulate as money or be
received or used in lieu of lawful money of the United States, shall be fined not more
than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." - Title 18, Section 336 ["Issuance of
Circulating Obligations of less than $1".]

Since all transactions subject to sales taxes in the United States are denominated
in cents (even the purchase of jet aircraft), restraining a discharge in part prevents the
discharge in whole. A person precluded from discharging his debts, except by overpayment,
is a person experiencing a hard juristic Tort created by the King. [return]

[45] Such as happened with Owen vs. The City
of Independence [445 U.S. 622
(1979)], which correctly reversed 500 years of Common Law policy that favored municipal
Tort immunization. [return]

[46] When the manuscript to Paul Blakewell's book
entitled What Are We Using for Money? [New York: Van Nostrand, 1952] was sent to
retired Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts (who had voted with the majority in the Gold
Clause Cases [Norman vs. Baltimore and three other Cases starting at 294 U.S. 240 (1934)]), Judge Roberts
sent a letter back to Paul Blakewell stating:

"Of course, I ought not to be quoted concerning a decision of the Court when I
was a member of it, but I am inclined to think that had I known the history you describe,
I would have been of a different opinion than the one expressed." - Quoted from David
Fargo in Will Gold Clauses Return?, in 8 Reason Magazine 72, at 103 (June, 1976).
[return]

[47] Even though Judges may deal with tax
enforcement proceedings whose only evidence is the acceptance and recirculation of Federal
Reserve Notes on the civil side of their courtroom, you are not free of incarceration by
merely getting rid of your Enfranchisements, licenses, and bank accounts that evidences
the acceptance of Federal benefits -- benefit acceptance that creates invisible contracts.
The IRS specializes in 2039 Summons and Discovery enforcement moves to perfect
incarceration through civil contempt proceedings, and the mere absence of a bank account
will not protect you from being cited for Contempt of Court and the encagement that
follows. [return]

[48] Yes, benefits accepted are also the
invisible contract into state tax courts:

"The simple but controlling question is whether the state has given anything
[some type of a juristic benefit] for which it can ask return." - State of
Wisconsin vs. J.c. Penney Company, 311
U.S. 435, at 444 (1940). [return]

[49] Writing to the French inhabitants of
Louisiana, after the American War of Independence was over with, Thomas Paine made the
following observation on the sometimes necessary use of aggression to obtain rights:

"We obtained our rights by calmly understanding principles, and by the
successful event of a long, obstinate, and expensive war. But it is not incumbent on us to
fight the battles of the world for the world's profit." - The Life and Writings of
Thomas Paine, by David Wheeler, Page 173 [Vincent Parke & Company, New York City
(1908)] [return]

[52] "... the federal law merchant,
developed for about a century under the regime of Swift vs. Tyson, 16 Peter 1,
represented general commercial law rather than a choice of a federal rule designed to
protect a federal right..." - Clearfield Trust, id., 318 U.S. at 367. [return]

[53] In explaining why state law governed a
federal commercial paper question:

"While [the] New York statute... is not controlling... [there is] no conflict
with any state or federal policy..." - Royal Indemnity Company vs. United States,
313 U.S. 289, at 297 (1940). [return]

[54] "In the absence of an applicable Act of
Congress, it is for the federal courts to fashion the governing rule of law, according to
their own standards..." - Clearfield Trust, id., 318 U.S. at 367. [return]

[55] Nowhere in Federal statutes does there exist
specific language to the effect that individuals using Federal Reserve Notes are Persons
attached to the administrative mandates of Title 26. The reason why we concern ourselves
with this state of affairs is largely of a judicial origin, as Federal Judges are free to
take Judicial Notice of such Supreme Court Cases like Emily De Ganay vs. Lederer, [250 U.S. 376 (1919)], which held that
French Citizens and residents are liable to pay American Income Taxes by reason of their
Commercial activities taking place over here. However, when we probe for the real bottom
line at a deeper level, the real reason liability exists lies in an operation of contract.
In 1925, the Supreme Court declared that there are two different types of invisible
contracts ("implied contracts"). [The Supreme Court did not create
something new here, as they merely declared in writing what had always been the structure
of Nature in this area of contracts.] One type of contract recognized exists because of
the practical factual elements that arise between two parties, and there is a structure in
the factual background where there has been an exchange of Consideration. Another type are
implied contracts that exist as a matter of express declared Law [see Henry Merritt vs.
United States, 267 U.S. 338,
at 341 (1925)].

"It is important to remain aware of the distinctions between contracts implied
in fact and contracts implied in law. In the former, the Court determines from the
circumstances that the parties have indicated their assent to the contract. In the latter,
however, the law creates an obligation "for reasons of justice, without any
expression of assent and sometimes even against a clear expression of dissent." - Freedman
vs. Beneficial Corporation, 406 F.Supp. 917, at 923 [Footnote #10] (1975); quoting
from 1 Corbin on Contracts, Section 18 and 19 (1963).

Since no explicit statutes exist to adhesively bind recirculators of Federal
Reserve Notes to Title 26, this use of Federal Reserve Notes contract is a contract
arising from the factual elements of a commercial relational nature existing between the
two parties (as Federal benefits were accepted in the context of some Judicially declared
Commercial reciprocity being expected back in return). Contracts to pay Federal Income
Taxes as a matter of pronounced Law are contracts like Citizenship, where some junior lex
statutes do exist that explicitly spell out Title 26 liability to such identified Persons
in no uncertain terms. [return]